1

 The probative value of the EEOC determination letter is substantially outweighed by

the danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury and therefore is excluded. See FED. R.

EVID. 403. The Court will also exclude evidence regarding matters on which Defendant

withheld discovery based on irrelevance or privilege. Specifically, the Court will exclude: (1) the

ages of the persons involved in Defendant’s decision to eliminate Plaintiff’s position; and (2)

discussions by Defendant’s School Board during its Executive Session, but only to the extent

such evidence was not disclosed or discovered during discovery. 

2

 Plaintiff’s experts, from The Center for Forensic Economic Studies, are qualified to

testify as experts pursuant to well-established reliability and admissibility standards. See

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 589-92 (1993); FED. R. EVID. 702. Defendant’s

criticisms of Plaintiff’s experts, with respect to: (1) Plaintiff’s worklife expectancy; and (2)

whether Plaintiff’s backpay calculation was properly offset by her severance and earnings from

other employment, are matters for cross-examination. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NANCY WOZNIAK, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

COATESVILLE AREA :

SCHOOL DISTRICT, : No. 05-4552

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2006, upon consideration of the parties’ motions in limine

and following a final pretrial conference on June 19, 2006, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence (Document No. 35) isGRANTED.

1

2. Defendant’s motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s economic

expert (Document No. 37) is DENIED.

2

3. Defendant’s motion in limine to prelude Plaintiff from asserting discrimination for

the failure to hire her for the position of temporary Director of Special Education

Case 2:05-cv-04552-BMS Document 49 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 2
3

 Defendant is correct that Plaintiff never raised Defendant’s failure to hire her for the

position of temporary Director of Special Education as an employment action that, on its own,

directly violated the ADEA. However, the Court will not prevent Plaintiff from discussing this

issue to illustrate the alleged pretextual nature of Defendant’s asserted non-discriminatory

reasons for its employment actions. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 806-

807 (1973) (pretextual nature of employer’s asserted reasons shown by Plaintiff in final step of

burden-shifting framework); Showalter v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 190 F.3d 231, 234-35

(3d Cir. 1999) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework to age discrimination cases under the

ADEA). 

4

 The testimony of the article’s author, Superintendent Scarnati, will be crucial in the

jury’s assessment of the disputed facts in this case. This article relates to Scarnati’s management

style regarding the process of reorganization and termination of employees. Accordingly, the

Court finds that the article is relevant and that its probative value outweighs any danger of unfair

prejudice or misleading the jury. See FED. R. EVID. 402 & 403. 

5

 The Consent Decree, entered into by Defendant in 2001 in an unrelated civil case, is not

admissible as evidence of Defendant’s liability in that case. See FED. R. EVID. 408 (settlement of

claim is not admissible to prove liability of that claim). Moreover, the Consent Decree is not

relevant to the issues here, and the danger of unfair prejudice to Defendant substantially

outweighs any possible probative value. See FED. R. EVID. 402 & 403. Indeed, the Consent

Decree did not even contain factual findings regarding Defendant’s actions or an admission of

liability. (Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. in Limine to Exclude From Evidence Consent Decree at 4

n.1.) 

(Document No. 38) is DENIED.

3

4. Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude from evidence article entitled “Godfather

Theory of Management” (Document No. 40) is DENIED.

4

5. Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude from evidence the Consent Decree

(Document No. 41) is GRANTED.

5

BY THE COURT:

Berle M. Schiller, J.

Case 2:05-cv-04552-BMS Document 49 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2